Electoral College Reform Picking up Steam: National Popular Vote for President Bill Passes California Senate

This should not be a partisan issue, although the bill passed with only Democratic votes for it and only Republican votes against it in the California Senate. Neither party has any discernable advantage with the Electoral College. Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes and lost the Electoral College in 2000. In 2004, John Kerry lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes but a shift of only 110,000 votes in Ohio would have given him the Electoral College, despite the popular vote nationwide.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger cares about the democratic (with a small "d") principle and also wants California to be a player and have our votes really count in November, he will reconsider his position on the bill. SB 37 and similar legislation in other states will not go into effect until states representing a majority of electoral votes have approved it.

It's really very simple--either you believe in majority rule or you do not. If you want the system gamed as it is now, then let's keep the Electoral College and plenty of us will have to go out of state to influence future Presidential elections, as many of us did in 2004.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times, "In voting to end electoral college, Maryland dares to go where Schwarzenegger wouldn't", George Skelton put it this way:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed an identical bill after studying the measure for, it seemed, about three seconds. "It disregards the will of a majority of Californians," he said in his veto message, pointing out that the state's electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate most Californians didn't favor.

To accept the popular vote concept, one has to support the notion of American citizens being allowed to elect their president directly, rather than it being the privilege of the states.

The bil's author, Senator Carole Migden, said, “It is astounding to me that the world’s greatest democracy does not directly elect the President by a vote of the people. A national popular vote for President will, for the first time, make every vote equal. A vote in California will be as sought after as a vote in Ohio or Florida. That is not currently the case.”

A national popular vote would fundamentally alter the conduct of presidential campaigns. Currently, candidates essentially ignore more than two-thirds of the country because they are “safe states.” More than 97 percent of all campaign activity, including candidate visits, advertising, organizing, polling and other events, occurs in the 16 or so “battleground states.”

“If a candidate does not have to actively campaign in California, it follows that they will not be well versed in the issues important to our state. Candidates will come to California to raise money, but will continue to avoid discussing California issues,” continued Migden in the floor debate. “A national popular vote will change that dynamic and force candidates for the first time to campaign not only in California, but also across the nation.

For more information, read Skelton's column, check out our articles, or visit the National Popular Vote site and don't miss their map showing how this is spreading from state to state. And beware of red herrings the opposition will throw in to confuse the matter. It is a really simple and elegant concept: one person, one vote. Either you are for it or against it.